Adrian, i think this is a rather old and not yet fully developed
application with a UI needing a bit freshing up for smoothly working,
databases are (I tried with commodities1/2) also old and rather small. Is
gold no commodity? if i put a question with an agent the effect is only
reordering the list of general questions. My suggestion is: Let at first
as input for an agent not only questions but also the option of a single
item and then give a list of possible questions the agent can answer
exactly for this item. May be i couldn't get everything so how it is
meant...
But the idea as whole has some original aspects, that was really what i
meant: Trying away from heavy classical view of SPARQL databases connected
to certain ontologies with a lot of small surprising error effects in
developement, so that people ask: Why dont you make a simple SQL database,
you talk then about Semantic Web, Linked Data basing on triples and URI's
and of course about public endpoints. Then comes the question: 'public'
endpoints with this performance where SPARQL only an adapted SQL for
triples is? etc...
I think you could next fresh up your concept if you have time for it, the
other question is how it would react under heavy usage... This is my
comment after 20 minutes, sorry that i had not much more time...
**********
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:05:54 +0100, Adrian Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:
Baran,
You wrote:
*This means downsizing the whole thing to a simplified kernel for a
special
application field.*
Here's a simplified kernel that arguably covers wider version of
application semantics than the usual "semantic web" tools.
Here's a summary slide:
www.executable-english.com/internet_business_logic_in_a_nutshell.pdf
The system that supports this is live, online at
www.executable-english.com.
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements. Nothing to
download,
just point a browser to the site.
Thanks for comments, -- Adrian
Adrian Walker
Reengineering LLC
San Jose, CA, USA
860 830 2085
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 4:33 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:02:46 +0100, David Jordan
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree that have some discussion about this is very useful. Many of us
have tried to evangelize semantic web technologies in our organizations
and > have struggled and failed because we cannot provide sufficient
justification for using the technology. Hearing the specific value
provided that can convince the skeptics is extremely valuable, much
more
valuable
than simple support questions about a particular API interface.
yes, i thing similar things, also like others responding to this thread
in
an open minded way...
But i also want to describe something for the future:
I imagine, a cheekily developer constructs a small, easily
understandable
and effectively implementable 'subset' of the whole thing 'Semantic
Web'
defining a new playing field or making great progress in usual apps of
today.
This cold be the realisation of TBL cit. (about 20 years ago?): 'The
most
exciting things about Semantic Web is not what we can imagine to do with
it, but we can't yet imagine it will do.'
First step is always a very simple and comprehensible idea.. This means
downsizing the whole thing to a simplified kernel for a special
application
field... Better late than never...
This is really what i instinctively think about this stuff after so many
years. I know, such things are totally off topic for Jena team, but my
posting is for 2 or 3 users who can be interested, if it is allowed...
thanks, baran.
************
On 10/02/17 12:22, kumar rohit wrote:
Hi, what are the benefits of semantic web technologies? I have used
semantic web technologies from one year but, in theory I am not sure
the
real advantages of semantic web.
When we develop a system using traditional RDBMS and Java and same
system
we develop using Java/Jena Protege SPARQL etc, so what is the
advantage
of
the latter application?
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
